medeval_build_section_context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the side-effect profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., what 'bounded' means for output size or how results are aggregated). The verb 'build' could be misinterpreted as creating a persistent artifact, which slightly conflicts with the read-only hint, but it is not a direct contradiction. Overall, the description doesn't add significant value beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but as is, it is appropriately short and to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description leaves crucial gaps: it doesn't explain what an 'evidence pack' comprises, what 'bounded' means in practice, or how this tool differs from the closely related medeval_search_project_evidence. With 5 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly relates to parameters: 'section-scoped' ties to section_id, 'CEP/CER' to document_type, 'bounded' to top_k, and 'evidence pack' to query and top_k. However, it doesn't explain what query is for or how top_k controls results, and project_id is not mentioned. The description gives a general context but lacks explicit parameter-level guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Build') and a well-defined resource ('bounded, section-scoped evidence pack for one CEP/CER section'). It also implies a scoping constraint (section-level) that distinguishes it from broader search tools like medeval_search_project_evidence. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the tool to call for section-level evidence assembly, nor does it contrast with medeval_search_project_evidence or medeval_get_agent_context. The 'bounded, section-scoped' phrasing hints at a specific use case but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.